• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My First Ever Banning

Hey Miragememories,

How's the buzzword challenge going?

I note that you still post over on LCF. Still trying to get 'drop' adopted as a buzzword within the 'truth' movement, huh?

Opps sorry it should have been 'DROP'

Think that maybe normal people don't have a problem with the concept of one floor assembly falling...ooops sorry ..'DROP'ing 10ft onto another and, in the process, exceeding the design load for that floor?

Oh and while you're at it, what's with the 'suspension design'?

Just another miragememories buzzword?
 
Miragememories said:
Look at the picture Gravy so kindly stitched together.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg[/qimg]

Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?


MM
Click to expand...

See, this is why no one takes you seriously. You have the tools at your disposal to determine what the slope of a 10,000 feet per minute dive is, and compare it to your picture, but you choose not to. Instead, you choose to eyeball it and come to a conclusion based on a subjective opinion.

To answer your question: The rate of the dive is clearly changing in the picture, so it's clear the pilot was coming out of a dive. At the time of impact, the slope appears to be about 1/7. 10,000 feet per second is about 1/5 at around 550 mph (rough figures). From this, it certainly looks like the pilot was at a steeper slope just before making his final approach, so I suppose that leveling off might slow it down a little. But not much, and for all intents and purposes, the momentum gained from the power dive would still be in effect.

(Feel free to correct my math if it is wrong.)
 
Miragememories said:
Different jet, 3 of 4 engines. I checked. The 747 has a cruising speed rating of 640 mph. 650 mph hardly qualifies for what you like to call "well above its 'rated' speed", especially considering it was in an uncontrolled descent!

Again you misrepresent the truth:

"The flight from Taipei to about 300 nmi northwest of San Francisco was uneventful and the airplane was flying at about 41,000 feet mean sea level when the No. 4 engine lost power. During the attempt to recover and restore normal power on the No. 4 engine, the airplane rolled to the right, nosed over, and entered an uncontrollable descent. The captain was unable to restore the airplane to stable flight until it had descended to 9,500 feet."
MM
Click to expand...
Yep the pilots messed up and let the plane go into a dive, they messed up. All day their only job is watch the plane and they were not ready for the problem of the day.

But you have not even got close to explaining the speed of a 747. You must try getting better and using MACH number at altitiude above 27,500 feet will be better than some mph you found on google.

Next take a pilot with you. The max cruise speed of a 747 is .85 MACH. The plane can do .92 MACH if you need to escape from some emergency. .85 MACH is about 586 mph, not very close to your 640 mph figure, even the .92 MACH would only be 634 mph. Your cruise speed on 640 comes from where? I would call any speed past .92 well over the max speed and the crew was lucky to recover the jet if they were over 650 mph, ask a pilot. Further, the airspeed below 27,500 feet would be much lower, in the range of 407 mph. Therefore if the Jet even without engine was going 650 mph, this puts it well above the max speed in the lower altitudes of 407. The 747, like the 757/767, are not meant to past 407 mph at lower altitudes below 27,000 feet. Facts are a bear when you mess them up.

Let me explain, at high speed a slight increase in speed can bring on major problems. The 747 exceeding .92 MACH, any amount, is well past the max speed. 650 is well above max speed, you are in the range of test pilot stuff, carry a parachute. Sorry to be nit picking but you mentioned the 9500 feet and at that altitude we are talking 650 is 250 mph above the max speed, oops. Tons above. But I bet it had slowed down or suffered major damage. Did our test pilots suffer damage to the jet that day? I will check.

Speed in the jet are complicated, they are on the instruments so we remember them, but a good understanding of them and your plane helps. What are the major truther site readings on the speed of 175?

Max cruising speed of 747 is 586 mph, .85 mach. 650 is well over. You are still confused over maximum speed and cruise speed. ?

OOPS! let me review, 650 is not much over the max cruise speed of 640 mph, as MM said? But 640 is not the top cruise speed, 586 is the top. Like I said any speed over the max is dangerous, and the proof is the flight we are talking about.

The aircraft was significantly damaged by the aerodynamic forces. The wings were permanently bent upwards by two inches, and the landing gear and nearby airframe had much damage. Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of both horizontal stabilizers had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained.
Click to expand...
Significant damage and they only exceed the speed a little?

9/11 the aircraft all were speeding just prior to impact, speeding for only several seconds. That over speed condition on 9/11 for the low altitudes was around 407 mph. Not some cruise speed you look up on google, the max speed the planes are not to exceed is 350 to 355 KCAS. That is good for all altitudes; you need a pilot or navigator to translate that into real speeds. 175 best impact speed I think is 570 to 590 mph. What do you think?

If the terrorist had not hit the buildings and kept speeding, their jet would start to fall apart, like this jet did.

the report and a photo of what happens when you go too fast for too long.. http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?
Click to expand...
My estimates for this picture is that over the last four images of the plane, it travelled 402 pixels horizontally while dropping 28 pixels vertically. Assuming that the images were stitched together correctly, that the camera was level, and that the camera shows the correct aspect ratio (a vertical pixel represents the same distance as a horizontal pixel), then at 540 mph (792 ft/sec), this would be an average descent rate of 3300 fpm.

It's entirely credible to me that someone who intends to crash the plane into a tall building would flatten out the dive near the end, which would retain the speed of the dive, but be easier to control with visual cues.
 
Miragememories said:
Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?
Click to expand...

What it looks like is irrelevant.

I'm sure even you can calculate the angle of descent of a plane given that we know the speed and the feet per minute.

Given that the plane was probably leveling off for the final approach, I don't see what your problem is.
 
Miragememories said:
Look at the picture Gravy so kindly stitched together.

8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg


Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?


MM
Click to expand...
You are arguing over the credibility of speed stuff? He said it was credible for a 767/757 to go as fast as 570 to 590 with no problem and he used the following statement.
As I have demonstrated, and everyone else here knows, the speeds NIST cites are entirely credible for a 767 in a power dive. Flight 175 was at full power and diving from 28,000 feet at over 10,000 feet per minute when it struck WTC 2.
Click to expand...
This argument is not about what the plane is doing but what it can do. Can it speed? Can it go 590 mph or fast and hit the building? Yes it did hit and it hit fast.

I will go further on this idea of it being credible for a 767 to fast. I will say in level flight the planes could reach these speeds with no problem using the engines, no descent required. The best record is flight 77 which rolled out with engines at low cruise speed and the plane was at 300 KIAS. The terrorist pushed the throttles to the firewall and reached over 530 mph when he hit the Pentagon at a 4 to 6 degree descent. With a slight decent, 77 went from 344 mph to 532 mph in 20 seconds, slight decent and engines. What is the point of arguing over what he said, when the main object of his statement is the credibility of speed.
 
aggle-rithm said:
See, this is why no one takes you seriously. You have the tools at your disposal to determine what the slope of a 10,000 feet per minute dive is, and compare it to your picture, but you choose not to. Instead, you choose to eyeball it and come to a conclusion based on a subjective opinion.

To answer your question: The rate of the dive is clearly changing in the picture, so it's clear the pilot was coming out of a dive. At the time of impact, the slope appears to be about 1/7. 10,000 feet per second is about 1/5 at around 550 mph (rough figures). From this, it certainly looks like the pilot was at a steeper slope just before making his final approach, so I suppose that leveling off might slow it down a little. But not much, and for all intents and purposes, the momentum gained from the power dive would still be in effect.

(Feel free to correct my math if it is wrong.)
Click to expand...

I think you meant 10,000 feet per minute, which is 167 ft/sec. (also since that was the figure used beforehand in your post) A plane travelling at 550 mph is going about 807 ft/sec (550*5280 / 60*60) and if you assume that that figure is the hypotenuse of your triangle (air speed as opposed to ground speed) that means that the ground covered as it drops 167 ft in that second would be roughly 790 ft. If the slope during the dive was constant, it would be about 1 : 4.75.

If you are using the 550 mph number as the ground speed of the plane, the slope flattens to 1 : 4.95.

Either way, your math seems pretty accurate here, since those could both be rounded to roughly 1 : 5.
 
Gravy said:
FWIW, according to the radar mode C returns, flight 175's average descent rate in its last 6 minutes was about 4,600 fpm, at a fairly steady rate.
Click to expand...

So, could it be called a "power dive"? Depends on your definition, I guess. However, I suspect there's a great deal of potential energy released when a several-hundred-thousand pound object is dropped 27,600 feet.

It doesn't really matter, though, because the only reason MM focuses on details like this is to divert attention away from his train wreck of a theory (if you can call it that) about what happened on 9/11.
 
4,600 fpm in descent is still a pretty decent slope, it's just closer to 1 : 10, which is steeper than most people would think. It's still steeper than most ramps are allowed to be in buildings, for instance.
 
In case you wondered, the 10,000 feet per minute figure is quoted here, and thus may be a peak descent rate or simply an overestimate. The Radar C returns are subject to some inaccuracy, but 4,600 feet per minute sustained sounds quite plausible.

That's still a considerable descent. Add to that the throttled-up engines, and you have, by definition, a power dive.

I would expect the terrorists to dive slightly ahead of their target, then level off, since they would be more concerned about overflying the target than building up maximum speed. Nonetheless, aircraft do not instantly decelerate to their normal speed upon leveling off. Since the engines were spooled up, it's not clear that Flight 175 decelerated at all once it leveled.

If there's a single person here who still thinks a 767 couldn't possibly have attained 570 MPH in that situation, I doubt that anything will ever convince you.
 
R.Mackey said:
In case you wondered, the 10,000 feet per minute figure is quoted here, and thus may be a peak descent rate or simply an overestimate. The Radar C returns are subject to some inaccuracy, but 4,600 feet per minute sustained sounds quite plausible.

That's still a considerable descent. Add to that the throttled-up engines, and you have, by definition, a power dive.

I would expect the terrorists to dive slightly ahead of their target, then level off, since they would be more concerned about overflying the target than building up maximum speed. Nonetheless, aircraft do not instantly decelerate to their normal speed upon leveling off. Since the engines were spooled up, it's not clear that Flight 175 decelerated at all once it leveled.

If there's a single person here who still thinks a 767 couldn't possibly have attained 570 MPH in that situation, I doubt that anything will ever convince you.
Click to expand...
Not much to add, but between thinning the apples out, I was thinking about need for speed. Laments of a frustrated fighter pilot (ie a tanker toad with 4 engines driving the tricycle with 10 tires.)

I think the plane could exceed 590 mph at 700 feet level fight with just the engines. In a KC-135 I was at 100 feet 300 mph, and I pushed up the throttles and we exceed our max speed of 405 mph before we got to the reviewing stand and we had old engines, 4x11,000 pounds of thrust. I caught the Copilot's hand in the throttles when I slapped them to Idle, so we would not catch the SR-71 doing his fly by in front of us. If we had remained above our max speed we would have damaged our aircraft. Most likely we would start loosing skin under the wing leading edge. I was mainly interested in making noise and have smoke come out of the engines, I was surprised we exceed max speed so quickly, but then our engines love 170 feet MSL. We could do .9 Mach at altitude but only 350 KCAS at low attitude, about 405 to almost 600 mph are the KC-135 limits.

The 767/757 have a lot of thrust compared to a KC-135 and could accelerate faster than the old plane I flew. For a good feel you can look at the data from 77 at the Pentagon. It accelerated from 300 KIAS to 463 KIAS in 20 seconds. Over 536 mph. 77 was descending at 4 to 6 degrees. In a KC-135 at 3 degrees decent angle, we can maintain 300 KIAS with the throttles at Idle. (a jet can glide pretty far without engines, use 3 degrees to get an idea)
 
Miragememories said:
She is wrong on a number of points but I see no point in addressing this further until I have more than piecemeal information.

You are desperate for something to retaliate with aren't you Gravy..too funny.

MM
Click to expand...

Now that you've returned to this sub-forum, Miragememories, after a lengthy absence most likely due to embarrassment on your part, would you be so kind as to elaborate on your unsubstantiated post above? What are the "number of points" that you claim I was wrong about? Surely, you have had plenty of time since June 3 to acquire "more than piecemeal information" about the building that you have worked in for several years (you know, the one in which you claim to have been in the 22nd storey stairwell even though the building is not even 22 storeys high), and about the 6 storey building next door that you claim is 22 storeys high.

Please, enlighten all of us who post in and/or read this sub-forum by posting what it is that you allege I got wrong. Be sure to post your evidence of that 6 storey building being a 22 storey building in disguise.

For those who don't know what this is about, here is the basic sequence of posts that sets it out:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656736&postcount=245
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656795&postcount=256
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656819&postcount=260
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656840&postcount=264
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656864&postcount=266
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656882&postcount=270
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656912&postcount=272
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656932&postcount=275
*post 275 is particularly telling regarding Miragememories' inability to distinguish fantasy from reality
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658138&postcount=288
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658157&postcount=291
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658578&postcount=307
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658598&postcount=311
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658636&postcount=320
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658651&postcount=322
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658684&postcount=329

Oh, and this thread is also very instructive in seeing the extremes of dishonesty and self-delusion to which Miragememories will extend himself. The parts where Miragememories (who has no training or experience in engineering, mechanics, architecture, structures, construction, etc.) thinks he knows more than RMackey and thinks that he somehow discredited RMackey with his tinhat nonsense (when he did, of course, no such thing), are absolutely hilarious.

This thread might even qualify as the acme of Miragememories' unmitigated hubris when it comes to someone exhibiting an over-inflated ego, since in reality, the man (Miragememories) has no basis whatsoever upon which to even purport to rub shoulders with others who are far and away his intellectual superiors by several orders of magnitude.

All in all, it's a pretty amusing read.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Oh, and this thread is also very instructive in seeing the extremes of dishonesty and self-delusion to which Miragememories will extend himself. The parts where Miragememories (who has no training or experience in engineering, mechanics, architecture, structures, construction, etc.) thinks he knows more than RMackey thinks that he somehow discredited RMackey with his tinhat nonsense, are absolutely priceless.

This thread might even qualify as the acme of Miragememories' unmitigated hubris when it comes to someone exhibiting an over-inflated ego, since in reality, the man has no basis whatsoever upon which to even purport to rub shoulders with others who are far and away his intellectual superiors by several orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

I feel it also prudent to mention that MirageMemories has also dismissed the opinions of Newtons Bit, a structural engineer based on his incredulity about single column failure in non federal buildings. The fact that Newtons Bit does this for a living apparently having no effect on MMs logic.

Incidentally while MM has claimed to have taken engineering at university he also claimed to be an editor by trade so I think it may be fair to label him as a failed engineering student, unless of course he passed and became an editor for an unrelated reason. He refuses to disclose it however while demanding the qualifications of others. Oh the hypocrisy!
 
e^n said:
I feel it also prudent to mention that MirageMemories has also dismissed the opinions of Newtons Bit, a structural engineer based on his incredulity about single column failure in non federal buildings. The fact that Newtons Bit does this for a living apparently having no effect on MMs logic.

Incidentally while MM has claimed to have taken engineering at university he also claimed to be an editor by trade so I think it may be fair to label him as a failed engineering student, unless of course he passed and became an editor for an unrelated reason. He refuses to disclose it however while demanding the qualifications of others. Oh the hypocrisy!
Click to expand...

Good point. Miragememories has long been very inconsistent in his posts about his alleged education, so it is probably safe to dismiss his claims to a university education as entirely unfounded at present. I remember his posts about having gone to college, and I remember his subsequent claims on this forum and others about allegedly having gone to university.

College and University are two very different things in Canada, though, and no Canadian would interchange the two or mistakenly conflate the two. As a result of his inconsistent posts and his demonstrated dishonesty on unrelated points, I would not accept that Miragememories has ever even attended university, let alone graduated from one, without solid evidence.

It is not surprising to me at all that he (Miragememories) dismisses the views of those who have extensive knowledge and expertise (e.g. RMackey and NewtonsBit) in areas where he has none himself. That is, after all, the twoofer way: handwaving, obfuscating, refusing to comprehend reality, fibbing, pretending to have expertise they actually have nonse, and hoping that nobody notices.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
Sometimes I wonder if Lash gets paid by the syllable by the NWO.

(Just kidding, Lash. As usual, a brilliantly-written post featuring your razor-sharp wit. What I wouldn't give to be able to write so... *wistful sigh*)
Click to expand...

You're forgetting what LashL does for a living. ;)
 
yes LashL partakes in the art of verbal combat, and is trained extensively in it...lol

TAM:)
 
The line from The Princess Bride always comes to mind when I read LashL's posts:
Vizzini: You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian lawyer when death an argument is on the line!​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom